ILNews

Opinions - June 11, 2010

June 11, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Today’s Opinions

Indiana Supreme Court posted no opinions before IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Larz A. Elliott v. Rush Memorial Hospital, et al.
70A01-0911-CV-553
Civil. Affirms dismissal of Larz Elliott’s proposed medical malpractice complaint against Rush Memorial Hospital, Carrie Tressler, and Dr. Philip Kingma. Elliott had alleged battery and negligence with respect to the forced catheterization to retrieve a urine sample after a Rush County sheriff’s deputy transported him to Rush Memorial Hospital and represented a court order at the hospital to retrieve a blood sample and a urine sample. Finds trial court erred in concluding that the defendants enjoy complete statutory immunity from any civil liability related to his claims of battery and negligence, but also finds Elliot’s claims fall outside the parameters of the Medical Malpractice Act because he was not a “patient” of the defendants, and that his catheterization clearly was not for his own medical benefit.

Sam's East Inc. City of Greenwood Board of Zoning Appeals v. United Energy Corporation Inc. d/b/a Greenwood Sunoco
41A04-0909-CV-545
Civil. Affirms trial court’s reversal of the decision of the City of Greenwood Board of Zoning Appeals to issue a variance to Sam’s East Inc. to have a gas station near a Sam’s Club location in Greenwood. Since receiving approval for the gas station in 2005, Sam’s Club had encountered an environmental issue that delayed building plans, and the permit had expired before Sam’s constructed the gas station. After the permit expired, Sunoco built a gas station on property adjacent to Sam’s property. Shortly after, an ordinance was adopted that changed whether gas stations could be built in the area where Sam’s had previously received permission.

Cedar Mill Homeowners Association Inc. v. Patrick J. Bocian (NFP)
32A05-1001-SC-85
Civil. Affirms small claims court’s denial of Cedar Mill’s request for attorney’s fees.

Gregor W. King and Delores P. King v. Hamilton Southeastern Utilities Inc. (NFP)
29A05-0909-CV-527
Civil. Affirms amount of damages entered after a jury trial for the valuation of the Kings’ land affected by the acquisition of a temporary and permanent easement by eminent domain.

K.T. v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development (NFP)
93A02-0912-EX-1266
Civil. Affirms decision of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development Unemployment Insurance Review Board affirming the decision of the administrative law judge to dismiss K.T.’s appeal as untimely.

J.S. v. J.M. and M.M. (NFP)
75A03-0911-CV-535
Civil. Affirms trial court’s order granting visitation with J.S. (mother)’s minor daughter C.G.M. to her paternal grandparents J.M. and M.M..

A.E. a/k/a A.S v. B.S. (NFP)
80A02-0909-CV-905
Civil. Reverses and remands trial court’s order emancipating A.E. (mother) and B.S. (father)’s 19-year-old son K.S. Also reverses and remands determination of arrearages on child support; and apportionment of partial arrearage to K.S.

Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions before IL deadline.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT